Dawgg

Perhaps his argument was not developed very well, but his underlying point remains: Drew Bledsoe is not a sufficient answer at the QB position. With the #1 Special Teams in the NFL, coupled with a Top 3 defense, Drew Bledsoe proved to be more of a liability than an asset. Bottom Line: time to give the kid a chance and have a capable veteran on board (perhaps Bledsoe?) in case he falters.

This post alone loses any semblance of credibility you may have had. Get some help.

Petty arguments aside, I think it's time to realize that Tom Brady just makes plays for his team when they are needed and is the best QB in the NFL.

Right on, Bledsoe has always been one of the top 5 long ball passers in the NFL -- problem is, we run a ball controlled offense that rarely takes shots down the field. The long balls I have seen Bledsoe throw (even this year) were things of beauty and I wish we utilized that strength of his more. That said, it's a lot tougher these days to utilize that strength when the quarterback is as immobile as Bledsoe. It really is a shame that Drew isn't just a hair faster because if he were, he could buy that extra 2-3 seconds in the pocket and really tear defenses apart. But alas, he cannot buy that extra time and that is a big liability for this offense.

That is precisely the argument people are making. Interpreting it as anything else is a stretch... the only concern that people have with respect to the aforementioned player is his effectiveness "now" and in the "future." While his accomplishments may or may not be worthy of a Hall of Fame spot, that is not the debate. The issue here is whether he is an effective quarterback now. Kurt Warner was a two-time MVP (something Drew has never done) and led his team to two Super Bowl appearances, capping one of the best 2-year stints a QB has ever had. But as soon as he stopped being effective, the Rams rightfully moved onto someone who was, a young kid named Marc Bulger. I will never say that Bulger is as good as Warner once was, but it was the right move for the future of their franchise. Likewise, a similar situation exists here. Bledsoe was a very effective quarterback at one time. That is no longer the case.

Nice logic. Let's bring Dan Marino back from retirement and suit him up to play. Get your tenses straight. Drew Bledsoe's status as a top 10 productive passer is a reflection of his past. As a Bills fan, we are concerned with the present and the future. Even the Bills brass has figured this one out now. I know you love Drew Bledsoe... but you must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... Repeat after me must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go... must let go.... must let go...

Some of your innovative ideas (eg Bledsoe is a good QB, the Patriots are a fluke, Tom Brady has little skill and all luck) are not mentioned in the Jim Rome Show or the D&C or ANYWHERE for a reason.... they are not true.

You pretty much took a shot in the dark. To think you would base your analysis on a hypothetical physical confrontation between the two head coaches is laughable. You go onto say that there is a precedent for a Steeler win this week. What precedent? If you want to talk about precedent, let's talk about the last time the Pats played the Steelers IN PITTSBURGH for the Championship Game. Does 2002 ring a bell? We all know what happened there. It's amazing what a homer you are -- so much so that you belittle every Pats accomplishment at every opportunity. AKC even predicted their demise prior to the Colts game. So much for that. Irrespective of what happens, the Pats are better than the Bills. I hate to say it as much as you do, pal.

If you were truly rebellious and didn't want to go with the masses, you'd get an Apple Computer. Clearly, you are not what you describe since you're a hard-core PC guy... not exactly goin out on a limb there!

An idiot who has led his team to the playoffs for 3 years. He's definitely in the top half of coaches in terms of skill.

From his standpoint, I can see what he's saying. Willis McGahee is a pretty crappy interview. It's like he's retarded and doesn't know how to talk. He ends every single sentence with "know what i mean?" or "know what i'm sayin???" and the answers he gives to every question is maybe... MAYBE 2 words long (if you're lucky). So from a media standpoint, Willis sucks. But as long as he runs, I couldn't care less.

AKC would disagree with you.

Thanks for the lesson on partiality. I too counter with the same argument. If I, like you, had an overly zealous view of my team at times I would have a clouded perspective on other organizations, often times resulting in me seeing flaws that don't exist. Seeing these flaws reinforces this overzelousness, making me feel better about my affiliation as a Bills fan. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I don't need that level of security in order to justify my stance as a lifelong Bills fan. I am secure in knowing that there are better-run organizations and great coaches and can recognize them as such, rather than invent some far-fetched flaw, as you have with the Patriots' coach and quarterback (who have won 2 Super Bowls in 3 years).

Over the short-term? What are you talking about? His approach has worked for 4 years. 4 years is an eternity in today's NFL, given the significant roster turnover year after year. He HAS proven that over the long haul, his approach works. You're just waiting for the Pats to have one losing season to feel better about yourself. You have an obsession with the Patriots due to your inability to just admit that they are better. You have posted numerous times trying to belittle Tom Brady's accomplishments as "circumstantial" or lucky... but I think most Bills fans who as you say are "students of the game" would understand that the Patriots are a model franchise and have set the standard for success. We can only hope to reach that standard.

I never said Quincy Carter was a great QB. If Parcells had found a solid replacement for him, more power to him. Instead, he replaced him with an aging, over-the-hill, way past his prime bum named Vinny. That was a stupid, careless move on his part. Antonio Bryant is a solid young receiver who has been in the NFL for only 2 years. OF COURSE HE'S GONNA BE INCONSISTENT! Receivers usually don't reach their true potential for 3 years.

I think the very strength you attribute to Parcells is what led to a dismal performance by the Cowboys this year. Parcells has continually been known to have "his guys" -- guys who follow him from team to team and who get playing time over perhaps more deserving players. Dave Meggett, Ray Lucas, Keyshawn Johnson, Pepper Johnson, Richie Anderson to name a few. One of Belichick's biggest strenghts as a coach and talent evaluator is to take all emotion out of the decisions he makes with respect to the franchise. He benched Drew Bledsoe after Tom Brady took the team on a run that would eventually win them the Super Bowl. Bledsoe was then a fan favorite and nobody would have faulted him if he had inserted Bledsoe back into his starting role. Moreover, in refusing to meet Lawyer Milloy's contract demands, he caused what many thought would be a devastating blow to the organization. The team got pummeled by Buffalo in the opening contest but went on to win the Super Bowl. Parcells, on the other hand, crippled his franchise. He released a decent young player in Quincy Carter, a quarterback who had taken the team to the playoffs and a 10-6 record just a year ago. His replacement? A Parcells crony -- Vinny Testaverde. He then traded away Antonio Bryant, one of the league's best young receivers, refusing to play him over the likes of... yep you guessed it: Parcells boyz Terry Glenn and Keyshawn Johnson. Overall, I do think Parcells' style is effective as he has had a lot of success to show for it. But the same applies for Belechick.

Keep going guys, this is actually pretty fun to read.

As I stated in the "other" thread, their methodology in measuring individual players' effectiveness is also adjusted based on the opponent. While I think that is an apt statistical adjustment in measuring the effectiveness of a unit, I do not think it is particularly effective in measuring the effectiveness of an individual player. For wide receivers in particular, it would make more sense to weigh their performance according to the strength of the SECONDARY they faced, rather than their particular unit. For example, a possible enhancement would be to analyze the number of pass plays the defense has faced as a unit, calculate the probability of an interception or pass defend and use that as a coefficient.

Correction: I think the outsiders puts your original claim in perspective -- that the defense skated by while the offense faced stiffer competition. What colclusion can we draw from this? Simple: despite the disparity in quality of opponents faced, the offense was pretty innefective when compared to the defense. To that extend, I agree with their metrics. Now just because they have other rankings doesn't mean I have to swear by everything they say. Their methodology in measuring individual players' effectiveness is also adjusted based on the opponent. While I think that is an apt statistical adjustment in measuring the effectiveness of a unit, I do not think it is particularly effective in measuring the effectiveness of an individual player. AKC, there are times when a statistical adjustment makes sense and there are times when it doesn't. Thats the genesis of my argument. Take it or leave it. You can insult my intelligence all you want, but as an MIT graduate and math major, I really don't care for your condescending drivel.

Did he improve? Absolutely. But then again, considering his pathetic showing a year ago, there really was no direction to go but UP. That said, there are two problems that Bledsoe has that I think necessitate a replacement: 1. Lack of Accuracy. While he throws an excellent deep ball, his short to intermediate passes get erratic at times. I was at the Oakland game and all his short throws were horrible. Against Pittsburgh, there were at least 3 balls that were thrown directly to the opposition. He even gift-wrapped a pass to Troy Brown for old time's sake. I do love his deep ball, however. But a deep ball alone won't cut it in Mularkey's offense. 2. Does not take care of the ball. Only 4 quarterbacks in the NFL had more turnovers than he did. Regarding his wins on the road this season, I was impressed that he played reasonably well in Ciny and Seattle, both tough places to play. In terms of leadership, just don't go there. Most losses aren't only his fault, but some of them were. And when they were, he rarely stood up and took accountability for them. It was excuse after excuse. Saying "this is my team in '05," I liken that to Travis saying "I'm a starter" -- and Bill, I know how you feel about that one.

Again, wrong. Their player rankings are based on last year and last year only. If you decide to can every player who has 1 bad year, then you'd be getting rid of a lot of players. Eric Moulds had one bad year mixed in with some pretty good ones. Drew Bledsoe has had a 2.5 seasons at QB for the Buffalo Bills that were mired in inconstency. So yes, I agree with their player rankings. Drew sucked and belongs in the bottom 3rd of QBs. Moulds also sucked and belonged as the 45th best WR. BUT (now read slowly because this is the part you don't understand) I feel Drew is beyond redemption. Moulds is not. Still "confused?"

Honestly, I didnt think this argument was about who is better bang for the buck. I thought this was about who is more effective as a football player within the context of the Bills offense. To answer that question: It's Eric Moulds, hands down. Regarding the salary figure: Moulds did have an off-year and is willing to restructure. I don't think removing him from the team will make the team better. I do, however think replacing Drew Bledsoe will make the team better.

By putting Bledsoe and Moulds in the same category, you have officially shown that your argument is assenine. That argument won't hold up anywhere.

Nope. Not quite. According to their stats, Bledsoe and Moulds were innefective last season. I agree with those. But one key difference. Bledsoe has just lost it. Moulds had a sub-par year. Bledsoe should be benched. Moulds should not. That is not the only basis for deciding what to do with a player. It merely refutes your point that the defense "skated" by with an easy season.

Sorry pal. You're wrong (again). I don't need the "Football Outsiders" to provide me with feedback about Bledsoe or Moulds. I have watched every game for the past few years and have attended practices and based on that, can reasonably gauge which players are effective and which players are not. I don't think Bledsoe's ranking on that site carries any weight with me. Nor does their ranking of Moulds. It is quite apparent to any "non-neophyte" that Bledsoe is inneffective and that Moulds is still a solid player. Where the stats do come in handy, however, is evaluating the production of the offense and defense as a collective unit. Taking strength of opponent into account, two conclusions can be drawn: 1. The defense was very effective. 2. The offense wasn't effective by comparison. Is Bledsoe the sole reason for this? No. Is he a big reason? Yes. Should he be benched? Absolutely.